Joint PhD Program

Research Proposal Colloquium Course
ED 669 (Windsor), ED 769 (Brock, Western), 6719 (Lakehead)

Fall 2008

Instructors:

Dr. Fiona Blaikie (807) 343 8222 email fiona.blaikie@lakeheadu.ca 

Dr. Larry Morton (519) 253-3000 Ext 3835 email morton@uwindsor.ca  

Larry’s Web Site: http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/index.htm

Instructors will comment in response to online postings where appropriate, as in a face-to-face classroom discussion. Also please note that there will be the occasional time when the instructors relieve each other on days they are attending meetings or conferences.

CLASS PARTICIPATION:

This is an online course. 

* A Note About Online Participation: Quality rather than quantity is encouraged.

Please contact Leslie Malcolm at lmalcolm@lakeheadu.ca  or at 807-343-8210 for technical assistance.

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

Research Proposal Colloquium (from the University Calendars):

In this course students examine theory and research in relation to their intended dissertation topic.  Students develop a topic idea in the form of a dissertation proposal, defining a research question and a theoretical base for intended study.  Students examine research questions in relation to varied methodologies, so that a diverse examination of research frameworks takes place through WebCT based discourse. 

Normally a Colloquium is a forum for researchers to present their research in its various stages of development with the intent of (1) informing their peers and (2) receiving critical commentary from their peers. In this course colloquium students inform their peers by developing and sharing: (1) their dissertation topic ideas, (2) their research questions, (3) their dissertation proposal regardless of stage of development, (4) their theoretical basis for intended study, (5) their empirical base, (6) their conceptual framework, (7) their methodology, and so on. Critical commentary emerges in the form of: (1) feedback from peers and instructors in online comments, (2) individual constructive comments and evaluations from instructors, and (3) required and recommended readings designed to address theory, research, and methodology in relation to intended dissertation topics.  

REQUIRED READINGS:

The course readings are available online and through university library databases and interlibrary loan. Some will be sent as attachments. Be sure you have the latest version of Adobe Acrobat http://www.adobe.com in order to access the online readings.

We have selected two required readings for each of the first four weeks to facilitate initial discussion and course direction. The reading for the latter portion of the course is primarily based on student writing. Note, however, that one additional reading may be selected for required, or recommended, reading for each of the twelve weeks as the need arises.

CLASS ASSIGNMENTS:

You are expected to participate in online discussion regularly (at least 3 times per week) and complete the written assignments as follows:  

COURSE EVALUATION:

1. Posting of the first draft of your proposal (20%)

At the start of the course students will sign up and commit to a date to post a first draft of the proposal (see course schedule for dates).  Please attach the 6 to 10 page document in MS-Word. Describe briefly the purpose of your study.  You will then articulate a research question, and outline a rationale, as well as the suggested methodology for data collection and analysis. 

2. Online discussion, peer feedback and constructive critique of proposals (30%)

You are required to engage in online discussion focusing on the readings, as well as providing constructive feedback to your peers on their draft proposals (outlined above).   Please always focus on the topic under discussion.  As well, the quality of your writing is more important than the quantity.  You are asked to help one another articulate ideas, track emerging thoughts, frameworks, and notions about research, and make connections with the literature. An important consideration is what constitutes a good research question.  Question the context for the proposed research as well as how it fits with the proposed method.

3.  Dissertation Proposal (50%) due on December 15^th 2008

By December 15^th 2008 you are required to submit the final assignment for assessment.  (Obviously, later on you will need to develop this initial proposal in greater depth or even in a somewhat different direction in consultation with your supervisor and committee members.)  The proposal for the Research Colloquium course is to be submitted in APA (Current Edition) format as an attachment in MS-Word format.  It should not exceed 25 pages.  In the proposal you are required to include the following components (although not necessarily in the following order as the research question and rationale often emerge from the literature review):

·        Purpose

·        The research question/s

·        Rationale

·        A selective, yet relevant, review of the literature (and the key studies must be presented critically, showing scholarly competence, understanding, depth, and sufficient detail to allow the reader to conclude your use of the study is warranted)

·        Method (include discussion of participant selection, procedure/s for data collection, analysis, and interpretation, consideration of requirements for Research Ethics Boards, and any instruments)

·        References (at least 20 scholarly references)

·        Ethics (letters of informed consent, etc)

·        Certificate of completion of the Tri Council Ethics Tutorial

COURSE STRUCTURE:

The course duration is 12 weeks, beginning September 10^th 2008 and ending November 30^th 2008. Readings are set for the first four weeks and student presentations of proposals will form the readings for the next seven weeks, with a wrap up recapitulation of the course in the last week.  Students should make every effort to complete readings by Monday of each week in order to engage in online discussions in a meaningful way during the following week. Students may recommend readings that will help to develop personal and perhaps group understandings of the research process.

WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION September 10^th to 12^th

Please complete the following readings for this week over the weekend of the 8^th and 9^th September.

Readings:

Leggo, C. (2002). What is good writing? Grammar and my grandmother. Inkshed, 19(3). Available from: http://www.stthomasu.ca/inkshed/nlett302/leggo.htm

Dobson, T. M. (2005). Technologies of text: Reflections on teaching, learning, and        writing with/in digital environments. Journal of the Canadian Association for        Curriculum Studies, 3(1), 123-137. Available from:             http://www.csse.ca/CACS/JCACS/ (Click on appropriate issue)

WEEK 2: THE RESEARCH  PROPOSAL September 15^th to 19th

Readings:

Kilbourn, B. (2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation proposal. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 529-576.

Duke, N. & Beck, S. (1999). Education should consider alternative formats for the dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 31-36.

WEEK 3: WHAT COUNTS AS EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH? September 22^nd to 26^th

Readings:

Eisner, E. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), Aug-Sept. 4-10.

Thompson, C. (2006). Art practice as research: A review essay. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 7, Review 3.

Art Practice as Research.pdf
167K View as HTML Download

WEEK 4: THE QUESTION OF METHODOLOGY Sept 29 to Oct 3^rd

Readings:

Blaikie, F (2007). The aesthetics of female scholarship: Rebecca, Kris, Paula and Lisette. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies. http://www.csse.ca/CACS/JCACS/V5N2/PDFContent/00.%20intro.pdf

Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-18.

WEEK 5: READING WEEK for the PROPOSAL– October 6^th to 10^th  

WEEKS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11 PROPOSAL PRESENTATIONS

These are proposal presentation and discussion weeks.   Students are expected to read the proposals by Monday of each week.  Please ensure that your proposal is posted by the previous Friday. 

Guidelines for Providing Feedback

.                      •Think before writing

.                      •Question before assuming

.                      •Be clear and concise

.                      •Give full consideration to the thoughts of the writer

Focus Questions for proposal presenters:

How has your initial question changed since you have had further time to read and reflect as well as further discussion? How has your work (or how have you) been transformed?

WEEK 12 Nov 24^th to 28^th: WRAP UP and REFLECTIONS

During this week we will consider these questions:

What have I learnt in this course?  How has my thinking about my research changed? Am I closer to writing my proposal for my Supervisor and committee?

Academic Honesty and Integrity

Academic honesty and integrity are paramount virtues in academe. All four host universities within the Joint Ph.D. program consider academic dishonesty to be a very serious offense. You should be aware of the definitions, policies, and consequences in effect at your home institution. 8Offenses against academic honesty will be treated seriously at all four institutions. Penalties range from a failing grade on an assignment to a failing grade in a course to expulsion. Proper acknowledgement of authorship is essential in all academic work regardless of the medium of presentation (i.e., written, oral, performance-based, or any other format). It is also important to note that the same work cannot be submitted for credit in multiple courses (self-plagiarism) without prior approval from the course instructors.

For your information, the instructors will be considering the following criteria in assessing your work:

Assessment of Online Postings and Peer Interaction

Assessment of Online Presentation and Defense of Draft Proposal

Rubric for Assessment of the Proposal